The costs above don't include things like pollution clean up and defense against sea-level rise. I also see no mention of subsidies in any form in the above.

As far as timelines, again wind is available now. I could live with nuclear, but there's no new nuclear plants being built. It doesn't look like there's any chance of a new one being built. It's not money (well, it is a little), it's politics. Anyone suggesting nuclear plants right now is dead meat.

A wind farm can be put up in months to a year. Plus it can start generating electricity as soon as the first turbine goes up. Only solar and wind can do that. All the others have to be completely built first.

Anyway, there's a lot to support it. Cost, no pollution, no fuel, etc. OK, there's some pollution during manufacturing, but there's some pollution when building an iphone too, no one is complaining about that. At least one company claims to have designed a more efficient turbine with permanent magnets, but I haven't seen test data for it, so I wouldn't put money either way.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Every technology seems to have its enemies. Wind turbines are ugly and kill birds. Everyone wants them but not nearby.

Personally I'm interested in thorium. China seems to be going in that direction. I assume we'll be buying their reactors in ten years.

My point is that opposition to solutions comes from so many directions. I don't think it coincides with the antievolution crowd.

No, the opposition to clean tech comes from oil companies. And it's not that it's because they don't have a piece of the pie. I have heard, but not confirmed, that at least one biofuel company was bought by a major oil company and then shut down.

As to the bird kills, every research article I can find on that subject points to one site, using old turbines that spin a higher rates of speed, causing a FEW bird deaths. According to the report, cats killed more birds in the US than wind turbines. http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Environmental-Impacts-Wind-Energy-Projects/11935

Thorium is a neat tech, if it works. The problem, again, isn't so much technology as political will. It can take 8 years or more to get a new plant approved, then another 4 years or so to build the facility.

Basically, the cost to build one 3 gigawatt nuclear plant (not Thorium), would build almost 10 gigawatts of wind power. even assuming a 25% availability factor, the wind still wins because it can be online in a year, while the nuclear plant will take 8-12 years to be built. Pollution from the alternate power source (until the new plant is built) is much, much lower with wind.

I'm not saying I don't want nukes. I agree that it will take a variety of methods. But if I have to push wind to get anything done, then I'll do it.

And yes, everyone has the NIMBY issue. I'm one of the few who thinks turbines are awe-inspiring.

Sorry, I'm going beyond your intentions, but I see so much mis-information that I try to correct it when it crops up.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

According to the above, the levelized cost for wind is already better than coal.

In fact, wind and hydro are both better than all fossil fuels except combined cycle natural gas.

No, that isn't what it states at all. It specifically lists dispatchable and non-dispatchable sources of power separately, because they're not comparable, or at least they are difficult to compare. One simply cannot compare kwh costs (eta, or capital/megawatthour, which correlates strongly to cost/kwh although not the same) from wind straight up to any dispatchable source, since wind has to be backed up at least 90% by other generating facilities, making capital costs for wind very high indeed.

Here's a source that tries to compare wind as a non-dispatchable source to dispatchable sources, and it claims that nuclear is in fact the cheapest source of power when carbon costs are factored in (Kyoto style?) medium-term, combined cycle gas the cheapest short-term, with wind more costly than both:

I can't vouch for either source, my primary point being that they at least address the problems that a non-dispatchable source such as wind has. The carbon costs of building both wind generators and backup sources can't be slight, either.

I'm one who tends to think that we probably should increase wind generation in this country. But the way in which wind "costs" are compared directly to the kwh costs of dispatchable sources so often is one of the reasons nothing gets done, because the economics are totally screwed up when this is done. Well, just build wind turbines, never mind the carbon and economic costs of having to back up nearly all of that generating capacity.

Just a small addition to the foregoing post: The UK discussion of power costs mentions the coldest periods as the time when generation of electricity must be highest, and also when winds are slight, since colder periods are times of high pressure.

For the US, heat waves are when the most electricity has to be generated, since we have much more air conditioning. Regardless, the hottest periods are also typically times of high pressure and low winds, meaning that once again peak power is going to be when wind contributes little.

Every technology seems to have its enemies. Wind turbines are ugly and kill birds. Everyone wants them but not nearby.

Personally I'm interested in thorium. China seems to be going in that direction. I assume we'll be buying their reactors in ten years.

My point is that opposition to solutions comes from so many directions. I don't think it coincides with the antievolution crowd.

The psych research didn't find correlations between opposition to alternative energy solutions and anti-science attitudes, it was about correlations between climate change denialism in the first place and anti-science. Opposition to different solutions does come from different directions, but opposition to the idea that there's a problem in the first place seems to be closely associated with the anti-evolution and conspiracy theorist crowd.

As to wind turbines, they do kill some birds (and bats), but so do living room windows. Where it becomes ecologically significant is where wind farms are sited along migratory paths or where there are populations of rare raptors. There is also the scarecrow effect of turbines frightening away birds from an area, but this depends on the species involved as some become more acclimatised to others. A good EIA system and a good planning framework should (!) sort this out. Visual impact issues are certainly an issue, and many people are vehemently opposed to them. Personally I like the look of wind farms in the right places, but as I earn part of my living from wind farm EIAs, I might be biased.

Every technology seems to have its enemies. Wind turbines are ugly and kill birds. Everyone wants them but not nearby.

Personally I'm interested in thorium. China seems to be going in that direction. I assume we'll be buying their reactors in ten years.

My point is that opposition to solutions comes from so many directions. I don't think it coincides with the antievolution crowd.

The rejection of science is precisely from people who want to do no solutions at all, i.e. maintain the status quo. Rejections of solutions (engineering, not science) are at least based in reality, whether correct or no. Wind power won't work well where I live, because there is like, no wind.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

I would like to be clear that I am not trying to minimize the problem. I am just trying to clarify rhe obstacles to solutions.

If we have 50 years then wind and solar become options. For the short run -- 15 to 30 years -- nukes are the best bet. In my opinion.

and conservation. What we need is to get serious about implementation of all alternatives, and about research to improve all areas (and the grid to handle it). I don't see the leadership from US government there.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

What alternatives? I'd like to see some numbers and time lines. There are costs associated with manufacturing the alternatives.

Germany is the best example of a country making a serious effort. "The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012."

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Putting on my pessimist cap, it looks a bit like 1938 in the world today. Perhaps after the next world war, the infrastructure will be rebuilt around renewable energy.

Documentaries from the future (Mad Max and the Thunderdome, and Riverworld) show that we will still rely on petroleum's long dead hand. Don't ask about the green stuff being served as food.

I'm thinking were are entering a new cold war. I hope it's cold.

But petroleum could get more expensive real fast, and that's really what it will take. It would be one of the better scenarios if we were forced to engineer and build new infrastructure on something like a wartime footing.

I still think the magnet problem is deeper than acknowledged, assuming small generators are going to replace centralized ones.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Putting on my pessimist cap, it looks a bit like 1938 in the world today. Perhaps after the next world war, the infrastructure will be rebuilt around renewable energy.

Documentaries from the future (Mad Max and the Thunderdome, and Riverworld) show that we will still rely on petroleum's long dead hand. Don't ask about the green stuff being served as food.

I'm thinking were are entering a new cold war. I hope it's cold.

But petroleum could get more expensive real fast, and that's really what it will take. It would be one of the better scenarios if we were forced to engineer and build new infrastructure on something like a wartime footing.

I still think the magnet problem is deeper than acknowledged, assuming small generators are going to replace centralized ones.

I have good news, kind of. If we hold to current emissions, there will be no apocalypse. Hence bringing alternative technology online just enough to keep emissions from growing is all that is required.

The problems: getting energy hogs to change their ways so that the gazillions of people in developing worlds can emulate us but in ways that won't make emissions grow crazily.

The immediate problem: getting Republicans to deal with reality.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

The problems: getting energy hogs to change their ways so that the gazillions of people in developing worlds can emulate us but in ways that won't make emissions grow crazily.

That is, indeed, a problem:

"No, you can't burn coal, it's dirty... well, sure, England did it for ages, the U.S. is still doing it, but you can't. You'll have to find some other way to reach our level of industrialization."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

As to the bird kills, every research article I can find on that subject points to one site, using old turbines that spin a higher rates of speed, causing a FEW bird deaths. According to the report, cats killed more birds in the US than wind turbines.

Killing 500 California condors will have a greater ecological impact than killing 500,000 house sparrows (indeed, the condor would be extinct well before you managed to kill 500 of them).

This "we can measure the impact by counting the number of birds killed" meme is crap. It's an intentional deflection.

The same argument can be made to claim that DDT, for instance, was not a significant threat to birds because after all, eggshell thinning only impacts a small number of species at the top of the food chain. Yet the peregrine was extirpated throughout the lower 48 states, even though cats kill orders of magnitudes more birds than DDT killed indirectly, and even though their preferred urban prey species continue to flourish, frequently in pestilential numbers (starlings).

There are legitimate concerns regarding wind power and its effects on various species which are already under great pressure.

Fortunately, grown-ups have studied the problem, rather than simply say "cats!" as the wind industry did from the very beginning in their efforts to sweep concerns under the rug.

New designs are, as Oleg points out, better at least in regard to raptors as Altamont pass's early mills used derrick-style pylons which attracted red-tails and the like to perch-hunt from them (leading to them getting whacked by the turbine as they went to-and-fro their perch).

This has led to requirements to survey proposed sites for possible conflicts with species such as golden eagles (ridge sites) and prairie chickens and other increasingly rare gallinaceous birds (farm country sites).

I can only read the abstract and literature cites, but unless they introduce Altamont anecdotally and didn't bother to cite any study (unlikely) it would appear you need to google harder.

There's actually a *lot* of research going on regarding wind power impacts and mitigation on species of concern, along with long-term ongoing monitoring of fatalities at existing sites (in order to gather data which can be used to help model impacts of future wind farm installations), research into species behavior, etc etc.

It's a serious concern, not to be swept under the table by simply saying "cats!".

I'm a wind power supporter. I'm also a believer in the TANSTAAFL principle.

I can only read the abstract and literature cites, but unless they introduce Altamont anecdotally and didn't bother to cite any study (unlikely) it would appear you need to google harder.

There's actually a *lot* of research going on regarding wind power impacts and mitigation on species of concern, along with long-term ongoing monitoring of fatalities at existing sites (in order to gather data which can be used to help model impacts of future wind farm installations), research into species behavior, etc etc.

It's a serious concern, not to be swept under the table by simply saying "cats!".

I'm a wind power supporter. I'm also a believer in the TANSTAAFL principle.

Ummm... that link goes to an article on "Nesting Ecology and Reproductive Success of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in Shinnery Oak-Dominated Rangelands"

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The survey by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service found political and religious disagreement on what is behind severe weather, which this year has included extreme heat and drought.

But nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of white evangelical Protestants say they think the storms are evidence of the "end times" as predicted by the Bible.

PRRI research director Daniel Cox said that some respondents - including 75 percent of non-white Protestants - believe extreme weather is both evidence of end times and the result of climate change.

Politics also color perceptions of the weather, the survey found. More than three-quarters of Democrats and six in 10 independents believe that the weather has become more extreme over the last few years, while less than half of Republicans say they have perceived such a shift.__"Their political leanings are even affecting how they experience weather, which is pretty fascinating," said Cox.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

I especially liked

Quote

"No one really knows how (end times) would look and how God would bring it about," Cox said.

But the LORD thickened the skulls of the tards, and they would not listen to Gore and Hansen...

The survey by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service found political and religious disagreement on what is behind severe weather, which this year has included extreme heat and drought.

But nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of white evangelical Protestants say they think the storms are evidence of the "end times" as predicted by the Bible.

PRRI research director Daniel Cox said that some respondents - including 75 percent of non-white Protestants - believe extreme weather is both evidence of end times and the result of climate change.

Politics also color perceptions of the weather, the survey found. More than three-quarters of Democrats and six in 10 independents believe that the weather has become more extreme over the last few years, while less than half of Republicans say they have perceived such a shift.__"Their political leanings are even affecting how they experience weather, which is pretty fascinating," said Cox.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

I especially liked

Quote

"No one really knows how (end times) would look and how God would bring it about," Cox said.

But the LORD thickened the skulls of the tards, and they would not listen to Gore and Hansen...

apes gonna ape

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG